OK, I know it's common for people to mistake strike doubling for a double die. The mistake is easy to understand as they do look similar. I also keep hearing about how coins with strike doubling are worthless as they are so common, but in all my time of searching halves, I just never find any coins with strike doubling. To date, I've found a little over 60 Franklins pulled from circulation. Yesterday, I started putting them in a Whitman when I noticed something on one of them. The Reverse of a 1963D had quite a few of the letters show strong doubling. So of course I do a Google Search and I don't find any 1963D double die varieties, indicating this is probably just strike doubling. Well, I start looking at all my franklins closer and I find five total 1963D with strike doubling and one 1963D strike tripling?. For having only 60+ Franklins, that's quite a few coins with strike doubling. My question here is, that while strike doubling was considered common in the past, it would seem that the Mint has eliminated the rate of occurence. Would this actual give rise to value as going forward, strike doubling is going to get much harder to find.
I forgot to mention, the key thing that ruled out double die for me is that the mint mark was doubled also. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the mint mark was manually punched in the final die and not present during any design transfer steps.
Correct! That is a tell tale sign it is not a double die, just mechanical doubling (or double struck?).
First things first.... I think we have a mix up of terms here....a double stuck coin is one that was struck twice...such as: http://cgi.ebay.com/Jefferson-Nicke...ryZ41089QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem Also there is a double struck coin IN the collar.... Machine doubling: (Taken from CONECA http://www.conecaonline.org/content/glossary.html ) This NOT a form of hub doubling. The secondary image is flat and shelf-like, with rounded-out serifs. There are no valleys or furrows between the images. When tilted, the area between the two images is shiny. The light reflects off of sheared metal. Because the metal is actually sheared or moved, this form of doubling is considered damage to the coin and commands NO premium. This form of doubling is also refered to as "Strike Doubling" or "Mechanical Doubling" by others. There are some Frankling DD's....see here: http://www.conecaonline.org/content/franklindoubleddies19481956.html http://www.conecaonline.org/content/franklindoubleddies19571963.html Speedy
But it IS possible to have a doubled die coin that also has a repunched mintmark. So don't immediately dismiss a possible doubled die just because the mintmark is doubled. The same goes for doubled dies and strike doubling. It is possible to have a coin that shows both.
Extreme cases of strike doubling (machine doubling) are quite desirable and can fetch prices of over $100. I'm talking about the production of separate design elements or the grotesque smearing of the design. These are rare, dramatic errors. I love 'em!
I thought working dies put through an annealing process after the mint mark was punched into the die? And if this is true why can't die doubling affect the mint mark?
The mintmark has been part of the master die since 1990. So it's theoretically possible for a doubled die to occur on the mintmark subsequent to 1989, especially before the single squeeze method was fully adopted in 1996. I just don't know of any examples. Annealing itself has no effect on a die's design. Neither does quenching or tempering of the die after hubbing is completed. Only hubbing creates a doubled die.
